State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Vikrant Chemico Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs Kunal Singh on 18 September, 2012
IN THE STATE COMMISSION:DELHI IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Decision: 18.09.2012 Revision Petition No.2010/446 (Arising out of Order dated 29.04.2010 passed by the District Consumer Forum(North East) Nand Nagari, Delhi in Complaint Case No.197/2009) M/s. Vikrant Chemico, Appellant/Opposite Party Industries Pvt. Ltd., through Mr. R.K. Sharma, 49, Govt. Industrial Estate, advocate. Kalpi Road, Fazalganj, Kanpur. Versus Sh. Kunal Singh, .Respondent/Complainant Prop. M/s. Kunal Enterprises, 183-B, J&K Pocket, Dilshad Garden, Delhi CORAM Ms. Salma Noor, Presiding Member
Mr. V.K. Gupta Member (Judicial)
1. Whether reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
Sh. V.K. Gupta, Member(Judicial)
1. This appeal by the OP of the complaint case No.197/2009 against an ex-parte order dated 29.04.2010, directing the OP to refund Rs.2,73,029/- and also to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/-, Rs.500/- as litigation costs.
2. The complainant/respondent filed a complaint against the OP with certain allegation and the case proceeded in District Forum (North East). Notices were issued to the OP/appellant for filing written statement but on 17.12.2009, the OP/appellant never appeared despite service of notice as per allegation, therefore case was proceeded ex-parte against the appellant vide order dated 17.12.2009.
3. Against the aforesaid order dated 29.04.2010, the OP preferred this appeal.
4. We have heard Sh. R.K. Sharma, counsel for the appellant/ OP in this appeal.
5. It is argued by the counsel for the appellant that at no stage of the proceedings in the District Forum service was ever affected and has invited our attention to the envelops which have been sent by the District Forum. The envelops which are on record goes to show that they have not been served and as per postal endorsement the premises was locked. When the premises was locked it was incumbent on the part of the District Forum to issue directions to the complainant for new and fresh address to be served on the OP/appellant. It cannot be said that the OP/appellant are duly served, therefore the order dated 29.04.2010 deciding the complaint ex-parte against the appellant/OP cannot be sustained.
6. The appeal is hereby allowed. Order dated 24.09.2010 of the District Forum is set aside and the case is remanded back to the said District Forum with the direction that the appellant/OP shall file written statement on 12.10.2012, the date on which the appellant shall appear there. The District Forum shall issue notice to the respondent/complainant also, and will decide the matter afresh after hearing both the parties.
7. A copy of this order be provided to the parties free of cost, whereas a copy of this order be sent to District Forum, and thereafter the file be consigned thereafter to Record room.
8. FDR, if any deposited by the appellant be returned to the appellant after obtaining proper receipt and identification.
Announced on 18th day of September 2012.
(Salma Noor) Presiding Member (V.K. Gupta) Member(Judicial) Tri